Some Quick Thoughts About Paul Ryan

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks after being announced by Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his vice presidential running mate in front of the USS Wisconsin August 11, 2012 in Norfolk, Virginia. Ryan, a seven term congressman, is Chairman of the House Budget Committee and provides a strong contrast to the Obama administration on fiscal policy.

Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan continues a very deep strand of Republican DNA when it comes to vice presidential picks: Since World War II–with only a few exceptions–Republicans have gone for young, promising junior executive types: Eisenhower picked Nixon, Nixon picked Spiro Agnew, Bush the Elder picked Dan Quayle, Dole picked Jack Kemp, McCain picked Sarah Palin. (The two exceptions are Reagan picking Bush the Elder and George W. Bush picking Dick Cheney). These picks tend to run toward ideology as their main selling point and Ryan, of course, is no exception.

And furthermore:

1. Romney said the other day that he wanted a campaign about issues rather than “backgrounds, business, tax returns,” and that’s probably why he chose Ryan–to change the conversation. I suspect the Obama campaign will still be about Romney’s business background and his tax returns, with a heaping dose of the Ryan budget thrown in, especially the drastic changes to old-age entitlements.

2. In 1988, the last Massachusetts governor to run for President said his campaign was about “competence, not ideology.” Romney has gone in the opposite direction. The “competent” choice would have been Ohio’s Rob Portman, who has real experience in the federal government and would have ramified Romney’s strengths–a good manager, smart about the economy–in the same way that Al Gore reinforced the image that Bill Clinton wanted to project. Ryan is all about ideology. His budget, which will now become the central document in this campaign, is one of the most radical proposals in recent American history. It would reduce the deficit without raising taxes, which means the federal government as we now know it would be gutted. This is where the formerly moderate Romney has chosen to take his ideological stand. Rather amazing, I’d say.

Additional Thought: Ryan has zero foreign policy or military experience. This is the lightest foreign policy ticket the Republicans have fielded in my lifetime.

3. The Obama campaign must be celebrating. For one thing, their current lead in Ohio seems safer–Portman might have changed the equation in that crucial state. Ryan isn’t likely to bring along his home state of Wisconsin…but he does sharpen the terms of the debate in ways that must have David Axelrod salivating.

4. The Ryan pick is the latest, and perhaps dispositive, argument that even the Republican establishment has now lurched hard to the right, following the trajectory of the Tea Party. Ryan was the choice of the libertarians on the Wall St. Journal editorial board and the neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard. These people are profoundly out of touch with the center of the country.

5. I love it. Ryan is smart, honorable and decent. This opens the door for a big, exciting campaign of ideas where the public gets to choose between competing philosophies. We get to see how popular Tea Party/Libertarian conservatism really is in this country. It should be very enlightening…

The thought that someone from a supposedly unbiased Time magazine is allowed to post an article so starkly opinionated and liberal simply makes me sick. Ryan's plan is basically what Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker did on a larger scale: cut government spending to balance the budget. The election is not about Ryan attempting to sabotage the poor and elderly, but about creating a budget that does not sink our children into a debt impossible to climb out of. Americans must do what is best for their children.

I am going to write this because it should be said. If it were a female that had Ryan's background and record, she would NOT be described as intelligent, solid.. blah blah.

Sarah Palin and Romney both have ONE bachelors degree. They are both ideologues. Ryan is more polished because he worked in a cosmopolitan position for a while. They both answer questions, they do not expect, in the same haphazard way that shows an inability to think quickly. Palin did not prep properly for her interviews, but Ryan is prepared to the extent that he can regurgitate material he has been provided in his cue cards.

Yes, he was in Congress but his dossier on the " I Made Law IN CONGRESS" part is really lean. He bumbles on interviews, not as badly as Palin, but he is not some smart and learned man. Neither is Romney. Romney has an ivy league education, however, in terms of intellect, he might be wired only for mining data. I have watched him many times on Fox, and once he is asked a question he was not prepared for, he rambles and falters. McCain did NOT.

Well, my point is this- as we continue to see Ryan defined, it will be interesting to see where these conclusions about his strong intellect and brilliance comes from. Palin never got that, even before she saw Russia from her window and obtained a jolt of foreign policy in her brain, as a consequence.

I am hoping the press gives him the rigorous review they gave Palin. It just seems so unfair to a attribute all these qualities about Ryan regarding his intellect etc., just because..??

To me, and I have to do some more research into Ryan, he seems like a good looking affable man, who just happens to be well spoken. I am yet to see any evidence of this bright and intellectual qualities the press bestowed on him once he was selected as Veep.

I have yet to hear of a single libertarian that supports this Dbag or his sock puppet boss. The media does its best to convince everyone that the entire possible spectrum of political thought is embodied in the 2 party system, but fewer and fewer people buy this load as each day arises

Mr. Klein, Paul Ryan may be smart and honorable, but decent?!? What "decent" person wants to remove healthcare for poor families? What "decent" person supports a law ("Personhood") that doesn't care if women with tubal pregnancies and other life-threatening medical conditions of pregnancy can't get life-saving surgery? These and other policies he promotes are those of a cold, cruel heart.

"libertarians on the Wall St. Journal editorial board and the neoconservatives at the Weekly Standard. These people are profoundly out of touch with the center of the country."

(1) As opposed to liberals? Give us all a break. In fact the Wall Street Journal, the neocons and many libertarians are just as open-border utopian as the liberals. They are simply the other side of the same tarnished bent coin.

(2) Our leftist political, media and other elites, like Joe, can never conceive of liberals as being "ideological," because they always see themselves as merely believing what more highly evolved enlightened creatures, soaring above the common flea-bitten herd of humankind, see as obviously factually and morally true.

While all the people on the left are rejoicing, Ryan and Romney are rushing around trying to change the tone of the Ryan plan. On 60 minutes today, Ryan stated that he was going to change Medicare ONLY for those under 55, so older Americans need not fear.

CAN YOU HEAR THAT GRANDMA??? GRANDMA??? Oops all she heard was Medicare and change...

I wish one of the parties would actually have good policy ideas. China subsidizes businesses that compete with the U.S.. China is currently devaluing its currency against the dollar. Yet, there isn't a peep from either side about this. There hasn't been a substantial raise in the minimum wage in my lifetime. Today, workers are expected to work full-time jobs that don't provide enough income for the basic necessities in life. This has just become acceptable. Again, not a peep from either side.

The housing crisis is getting ready to kick into another gear: a housing shortage. Food prices are rising, energy prices are rising, wages are falling, healthcare costs continue their march into the stratosphere. Again, nothing from either side. I admit, Republicans are the worst--by far, but this election, like most these days, is a real stinker.

What I understand as "honorable" is the fact that Ryan chooses to concentrate on trying to solve the economy's problems rather than invent places that will serve as Obama's birth place. Whether his solutions will work or not is one question. But the first question that needs to be answered is whether his solutions are acceptable to the American public. Romney chose to put this question to the test and for that he too should be commended.

After all this appreciation, let's make sure the answer to the first question is "No way."

I'm not sure I agree with Joe's statement about the lightest foreign policy team ever. On the face of it he's right - Compared to McCain/Palin, McCain has tons of FP expertise. But Romney (despite his best efforts to show the contrary) and Ryan are no dummies and they'll learn fast. I wish McCain health and a long life, but imagine if he would have left us with Palin at the helm...

I cringed when I read that. Do you fully understand where Ryan stands? Do you understand what his budget would do to the unfortunate? Do you understand what his budget will do to make many more of us unfortunate? Do you understand what his budget will do to redistribute the money to the wealthy?

He can run and still run for his seat in Congress. A candidate can't do that in Philadelphia - if you want to run for Mayor for example, you can't also run for city council. It might be a good idea to do the same thing for Congress, of course they would never agree to it.

As a working person planning to retire in ten years, a pick such as Ryan puts a lot of concern on my plate. What would it mean to retire without Medicare and have vouchers instead? Realistically, no private insurance company will be able to offer adequate care for the elderly at a reasonable cost. These programs, including SS and Medicaid, need reforming of course, but what would a retired person do without them? One catastrophic illness means certain financial ruin or no care at all. Like in the "Good Ole Days", old people simply died at home at a much earlier age. If the Right is serious, then their agenda means nothing more than mass euthanasia of the elderly by default. I hope I'm wrong. Whichever party wins you hope they will preserve these traditional programs. One never knows which party is truly on your "side", if any.

Smart, possibly. But honorable and decent? When rich men like Romney and Ryan try to shred the social safety net and destroy the small amount of security there is for the middle class and the poor, it is neither honorable or decent. I have watched Mr. Ryan and I find him glib and unconvincing, hand picking his statistics, if not making them up, to support policies that can only profit the wealthiest Americans. He will lead the charge in class warfare, and one can only hope that Americans see him for what he is - a smooth talking snake oil salesman with a poisonous concoction to sell - a dash of Ayn Rand, a spoonful of Milton Friedman, and a quart of Koch Brothers. That he is lauded by the disgraced Rupert Murdoch should be a clue to who this man is and what he is offering to the Tea Party loonies.